Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Archaeopteryx]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (4/9) Movie CLIP - Healing the King (2002) HD - YouTube

 

[Davian]

"the fact that under atheism..." I'm an atheist, and I do not see the universe as empty and meaningless.

It would appear that Elio conflates "atheism" with "nihilism", as if helps his assertions.

 

[Elioenai26]

To all of those who reject the moral argument for the existence of God, I would ask you all this question:

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally deficient? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

I am only concerned with dialoguing with those who see what they did as being bad, and wrong, and evil.

Thank you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To all of those who reject the moral argument for the existence of God, I would ask you all this question:

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

I am only concerned with dialoguing with those who see what they did as being bad, and wrong, and evil.

Thank you.

If you are interested in a dialogue, then perhaps you should consider answering our questions for a change. At present, it seems like you are interested less in dialogue and more in preaching.

 

[Illuminaughty]

This argument is ridiculous. You are essentially saying that, if morality evolved, then there is no morality. That is like saying if colour perception evolved, then no one can perceive colour.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you are interested in a dialogue

I am interested in dialogue, just not with you. You already have my reasons.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I don't believe in God. I still embrace moral utilitarianism and consequentialism. I see no real contradiction there. I like pleasure, well being, comfort, joy, all that good stuff. I have empathy and therefore want others to have the same so I work in that direction.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am interested in dialogue, just not with you. You already have my reasons.

Actually, all I have are your excuses. You ostensibly want dialogue, but you don't want to answer any questions directed to you.

 

[Davian]

How dare you suggest that Elio might be doing wrong by the site's rules. You're an atheist (well, a seeker) -- you have no basis for doing that!

And he didn't even apologize for the plagiarism. Imagine that!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And he didn't even apologize for the plagiarism. Imagine that!

I'm sure that, as a theist, he has a "rationally justifiable reason for making such judgments".

 

[quatona]

To all of those who reject the moral argument for the existence of God, I would ask you all this question:

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally deficient? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

I am only concerned with dialoguing with those who see what they did as being bad, and wrong, and evil.

Why is that?
How is their subjective judgement (either way) of any relevance for showing that there is an "objective morality" (that something is right/wrong regardless of what people think, in your own definition)?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

To all of those who reject the moral argument for the existence of God, I would ask you all this question:

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally deficient? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

I am only concerned with dialoguing with those who see what they did as being bad, and wrong, and evil.

Thank you.

I do see this as bad, and wrong, and evil. In addition to that, in some other thread you identified me as a moral objectivist (I'll leave open whether or not that is 100% spot on).

A few pages back I did state my objections to your argument.

Have you or have you not by now properly backed up the first premise of the moral argument? You really should ask yourself why you or your Apologeticism leaders haven't done so. I tell you, it can't be done. The argument is a dud.


(And as a curious aside... Could you tell me what happened in your opinion to a lot of those people you enumerated above after they had been murdered? Like, the Jews for instance. Huh?)

 

[Elioenai26]

Why is that?
How is their subjective judgement (either way) of any relevance for showing that there is an "objective morality" (that something is right/wrong regardless of what people think, in your own definition)?

I was just wanting to talk with people who hold that the Nazis were wrong thats all.

There are three types of people that exist, maybe four:

1. People that think the Nazi actions were morally wrong
2. People that think the Nazi actions were morally right
3. People that think the Nazi actions were morally neutral
4. Someone might venture to maintain that the word "moral" has no meaning and therefore their acts cannot be categorized as amoral or moral at all.

If a person holds to either (2) or (3) or (4), then that is their choice, I just do not want to discuss the topic with them. I respect their choice and ask that they respect my choice not to speak with them about it. Thats all.

 

[Elioenai26]

I do see this as bad, and wrong, and evil. In addition to that, in some other thread you identified me as a moral objectivist (I'll leave open whether or not that is 100% spot on).

A few pages back I did state my objections to your argument.

Have you or have you not by now properly backed up the first premise of the moral argument? You really should ask yourself why you or your Apologeticism leaders haven't done so. I tell you, it can't be done. The argument is a dud.


(And as a curious aside... Could you tell me what happened in your opinion to a lot of those people you enumerated above after they had been murdered? Like, the Jews for instance. Huh?)

Thank you. As you can tell, a lot of people are responding to my questions. I ask you bear with me in responding to you in an indepth manner. Thank you for considering this request.

 

[Elioenai26]

Actually, all I have are your excuses. You ostensibly want dialogue, but you don't want to answer any questions directed to you.

I understand your position. I thank you for making it known. As you can see, I am kind of dealing with many posts, so I will have to answer those and respond to those who I can and who I feel I should do so first. Thank you for considering my position.

 

[Elioenai26]

And he didn't even apologize for the plagiarism. Imagine that!

I'm sure that, as a theist, he has a "rationally justifiable reason for making such judgments".

Did I plagiarise? I did not know that I did. Where was this at?

 

[Elioenai26]

Under General Relativity we have no basis either. Once you realise why, you'll realise why you're so utterly wrong on this topic.

Scientists do not take General Relativity and try to explain all of reality by it the way natrualistic scientists do with the T.E.N.S.

Therefore your analogy is not really an accurate one, or a good one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientists do not take General Relativity and try to explain all of reality by it the way natrualistic scientists do with the T.E.N.S.

Do show how scientists try to use the theory of evolution to explain:
1) particle-antiparticle condensation,
2) quantum tunneling,
3) cosmogeny, and
4) the existence of the Moon.

 

[Davian]

Did I plagiarise? I did not know that I did. Where was this at?

It was noted. But don't worry about it Elio. It's like lying for Jesus; it's okay if it's done for a "good" cause.

One does wonder where they get their morals from.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I wholeheartedly agree. As a theory, the T.E.N.S. (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) should be descriptive. However, naturalistic scientists go one step further and make it prescriptive by attributing to it causal powers of determining beneficial and nonbeneficial genes. This is unwarranted.

Evolution doesn't have anything to say on right and wrong. By which I mean, aiding survival isn't good in evolution. There is no good, because it isn't a subject it deals with. That comes under philosophy and ethics. The theory of evolution only deals with evolution, so of course it will only talk about morality in terms of its part in evolution.

The italics underlined portions of your statement contradict each other.

I don't know what ENS stands for, but where it came from doesn't matter so much as what it is.

E.N.S. is my acronym for Evolution by Natural Selection.

Your statement about the origin of morality as not mattering so much as what it is is clearly incorrect. In fact, a great portion of the work and research conducted by secular ethicists, humanists, biologists, as well as sociologists are all conerned with moral ontology.

Prof. Shelly Kagan in his book The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) has a good deal to say about the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He rightly maintains that "one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has" (p. 13). He insists, "This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don't have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true" (Ibid.)

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-moral-arguments#ixzz2GZcWvgck

I didn't say I was above him.

If you were to say person (A) was wrong for what he did to (B), from what basis, or on what grounds would you be saying that? What are you appealing to. In other words, what would you give as your reason for maintaining that he was wrong?

This view of naturalism you have, is only one view.

When I speak of naturalism, I am speaking of metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Proponents of it maintain that all that constitutes reality can be explained via naturalistic explanations. This is not my definition that I made up. This is not my view of it either. Just do some research on it.

The view that only what is physical is important. I don't hold that view.

Then you have an ontological view other than metaphysical naturalism. What is your view?

I also take the subjective into my consideration. Conscious subjective experiences exist just as much as a rock does.

You're exactly right. They both exist, but differ in nature. A rock is a concrete object, a conscious subjective experience is what is commonly referred to as an abstract reality. Some, however, would deny that abstract realities really exist, but that is not germane to our discussion.

It is the subjective that produces the foundation for morality, and then objectivity transforms the subjective into morality.

When you say: "It is the subjective that produces the foundation for morality", are you saying the subjective opinions of people produce the foundation for morality? What is this foundation you speak of and how is it produced?

There are manifold problems here. How does objectivity "transform" something? Are you saying that objectivity has causal powers? You are speaking about objectivity as if it were some type of intelligent force with volitional capacites, as if it determines and chooses and transforms the subjective opinion's of people into morality. What does this "objectivity" as you refer to it determine what is moral and what is not? How does it do this, and why would it do this?

I wanted you to change it because your example isn't morally clear to me. It would seem that your case would be more convincing if you used a more straight forward moral situation (eg: killing someone for their money).

People kill other people everyday for their food. It happens quite frequently in war torn nations, and poverty stricken nations. You may not see it often because of your geographic location, but the example is not unique, it is more common in the world than you would like to think or admit, and therefore quite relevant and clear, as well as convincing.

I'm not mistaken, you are just making stuff up about naturalism.

No Paradoxum, not at all. Everything I have asserted about the T.E.N.S. is based upon what naturalists themselves say about it.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe other people have subjective experiences, and you leave this out of your talk about naturalism.

Of course people have subjective experiences. I have never said they do not. Nor does a person have to believe in God to have subjective experiences. I have never said that either.

That is one possible view, but it isn't necessarily true, and I don't think it is true.

Then you hold to some other worldview. What worldview do you espouse?

Reason and logic are also by products of evolution, but 1+1 really does equal 2. Mathematics can be true or false. It isn't only true because 1+1=2 is helpful for survival.

Ok I get your point. You are saying that mathematics is true for at least one other reason than for its ability to aid in survival. Even if I agree with that, it does nothing to either undercut, or rebut what naturalistic scientists say regarding the outworkings, manifestations, and by-products of E.N.S. For the T.E.N.S. is concerned about survival and reproduction of species. A person can sit around and crunch numbers all day, but under the T.E.N.S., if it does not ultimately help the person survive in this harsh, dog eat dog world, if it does not help a species reproduce and survive, the T.E.N.S. eliminates it as superfluous. This is naturalistic science Paradoxum, not just my opinion. Once again, check it, research it.

Something being a product of evolution tells us nothing about whether the thing is real.

Under metaphysical naturalism even our very own thoughts about metaphysical naturalism are simply the results of E.N.S. This was one of Darwin's main misgivings about his own theory, for he states to a friend:

"the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction's of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." [Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.]

So when you speak about the fact that just because something is a product of evolution does not tell us whether it is real, I would go one step further and say, can we be sure that our thoughts about the theory of evolution itself are "real" as in "corresponding to reality"?

That is the question naturalists need to ask themselves.

What do you mean, do I see? You quoting him is no different from me quoting Nietzsche and saying, 'do you see... God isn't real'. I don't accept him as an authority.

If you believe in the T.E.N.S. then you should accept him as an authority because he in a nutshell has defined what one must believe and hold to be true if one espouses metaphysical naturalism and the T.E.N.S. This is non-negotiable. What he says is no different than what any other naturalistic scientist would say regarding homosapiens if they remain true to naturalism and the T.E.N.S. as it is, and that is why I supplied his quote.

The second issue I have with your above statement is that Nietzsche never once said that "God isn't real". He never said that Paradoxum. Not one time in any of his written work did he ever say that. Nor was Nietzsche a theologian but a German philosopher, poet, composer, cultural critic, and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, displaying a fondness for metaphor, irony, and aphorism.*Wiki*- Therefore your analogy of Nietzsche and Ruse fails to persuade because Ruse is an expert in the field in which he is making his assertions, Nietzsche however, was more concerned with writing about God in an aphoristic, ironical, and metaphorical way. To compare the two is to compare apples to oranges.

What he did say was:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Joy of Science, Section 125, tr

I agree that the capacity for morality has evolved because it was good for survival, but that doesn't mean it is nothing but an illusion.

What is morality then?

Humanists not only can have justifiable reasons for moral judgements, but they are better than the theists. They can explain what is good and bad, and why, down to the very foundation of it. The theist, on the other hand, seems to have to stop at "God said so" without a reason why.

This again is fraught through with inconsistencies and baseless assertions. What are the justifiable reasons that humanists have for making moral judgments? How can you explain what is good and bad? What is good? What is bad? How do you distinguish between the two? Why do you distinguish between the two? When? Who determines what is good and bad? What is this foundation you speak of? What standard are you appealing to when you say (A) is wrong or (B) should not have done (C)?
I could go on and on....

Our ability to do geometry is produced by evolution, but the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees on a flat surface, and we know this to be true. Not everything created by evolution is an illusion.

I did not say everything "created" by evolution is an illusion. So your usage of mathematics to prove your point is basically aimed at a strawman.

Morality is outside the realm of science.

My my my! This is indeed miraculous! Pardon the pun, but I agree. But you have still failed thus far to present a coherent ontological explanation for morality.

You know I doubt that, since I know enough about the theory of evolution to know that it isn't intelligent, proscriptive, or mysterious, and that isn't what I have heard about serious scientist say.

Well, maybe we could all stand to learn more?

Naturalistic scientists who propagate the T.E.N.S. in their attempt to use it as a worldview, in the end, must attribute to it, properties that as a theory, it simply does not possess or warrant. This is promissory naturalism, or the idea that one day science will explain everything, this amounts to no more than scientism, which is an excercise of faith in science, an exercise that the same scientists ridicule the religious for engaging in. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.